True. The legislation currently being considered/passed in many states attempting to outlaw Tesla’s business model is clear evidence of lobbies presence… and “influence”… at the state levels.
@Same,no,no,what I meant was to help Farmer Brown not the mega corps(ADM,Cargill,etc)
Alcohol works fine in South america(about half the price and really designed to use alcohol-they actually have a small tank in the newer cars for gasoline,to help the cold weather starts,not to mention the years of experience with ethanol for auto fuel) and its good there,not here-Kevin
Farmer Brown already gets help.
IMHO it’s time to end the government manipulation of the agricultural markets. That includes Farmer Brown.
@Same,no,what I meant was to help Farmer Brown-not the mega corps.
Alcohol works fine in Brazil or whever in South America,where they have years of experience with alcohol for motor fuel(around half the cost of gasoline there) the newer cars actually have a small tank for gasoline to help with cold weather starts.The process to ferment sucrose(sugar cane is more efficient to convert to Ethanol then corn “sugars”) is very straight foward and they have a lot of sugarcane.It works good there,not here-lets save our corn for cornmeal and cornflakes.
As an aside we used to have stoves that would burn kernals of corn for heating purposes(another “green use” for corn if you will-Kevin
And my belief is that out tax dollars should not be subsidizing ANYONE. That includes Farmer Brown.
I know it’s compassion that makes you want to help Farmer Brown. But in the end, we all pay for it. For decades the town I used to live in supported the independent farmers with huge tax breaks (subsidies) in order to maintain the culture of the town. In the end, the farmers all sold their lands to developers at $50,000 an acre. The farmers made millions, retired to Florida, and our property taxes skyrocketed due to the population boom caused by the development.
Farm subsidies were created to stabilize the markets. No one benefits when farmers glut the market with corn one year and soy beans the next. And if ethanol is legislated out of gasoline a great many corn farmers will find themselves looking over millions of dollars worth of weeds.
@Same,true enough,big landowners around here get heavily subsidized for hoarding land so to speak,its so bad a young person starting out cant hardly get a decent place to build.In actuality the carpetbaggers that move in and want to stifle growth dont have anything to worry about anyway,because no business or industry would want to locate here with its problems of location and infrastructure.The influence of the " ‘’ ‘’ Conservancy" is probaly not the best for our situation-Kevin
PS, let me throw this little crazy notion at you Dear Readers,this whole area seems to be getting setup for a bugout scenario and given the current Zeitgeist,it could happen(not many ways in or out)
Farm subsidies were initially created to assist farmers during the dust bowl years. Areas of Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma (especially the panhandle), and into Texas were devastated. Poverty and human suffering was rampant. What at the time was called “farm subsidies” was actually disaster relief combined with incentive to get the farmers to vary and rotate their crops to prevent another “dustbowl” scenario. Since that time, farm subsidies have been used for all sort of nefarious manipulations. The entire nature of farm subsidies, what they are, how they work, and what they do has completely changed.
Kevin, as hard as I try I am totally stumped by what you mean in your last sentence. No disrespect meant, but perhaps regional jargon differences have bundled up to make the sentence unintelligible to me up here in NH. /:-[
The ASCS has been politically twisted to serve those who least need it but there is a need for federal control of agricultural commodities.
Perhaps, but what that needs to be and how it should be accomplished could fill an entire book. And, no doubt, has. The subsidies and regulations system we currently have in place has become way to corrupt and misused to be a part of a sensible program IMHO.
No doubt, the ASCS has become part of the political cronyism in federal politics but what program hasn’t?
Sadly, I don’t know of one.
@Same,you have to be of this mindset to understand what I was referring to,just like this morning its snowing,we have no control over natural diasters like solar flares and magnetic events that would have the “Golden Horde” at your doorstep within two weeks,what I’m saying is this-preps are being made for diasters,but not necessarily for Mr&Mrs Joe Average and progeny.
Our Gov’t and legislature can start Wars and I assure you that they will be the last ones that will be directly affected,we spend Trillions of dollars on War Toys,but very little on hardening the “Grid” against an EMP event(would take only a tiny fraction of the Defense budget) don’t think it could happen? during the late 19th century a solar event occured,that melted the telegraph wires and set railroad ties on fire in parts of Europe-so EMP is a serious event,by the way we are overdue for a huge Solar event-Kevin
I don’t know what a “Golden Horde” is, but I am highly familiar with solar events and their effects. I honestly don’t know if we can do much to protect ourselves from those.
It’s my belief that those “trillions of dollars” we spend on “war toys” have kept us free. I’ve attached a link to a chart on defense spending since 1962. You’ll see that it continues to plummet. This scares me. And it should scare the rest of the world.
IMHO Russia’s recent incursions into Crimea and their buildup on the Ukraine border, recent events in North Korea, the attack in Libia on our Benghazi embassy and the brutal murder of out ambassador, Syria’s total disregard for any finger-wagging by us (line? What line?), and many other unsettling events in the world are a direct result of our gutting our military and our displaying a total unwillingness to present any kind of threat to our adversaries. Are you aware that the Ukraine has no military because long ago we and our allies promised to protect them against attack in exchange for their disarmament?
You’re getting your wish. Military spending continues to plummet. And the world has become a much more dangerous place as a result. Our isolationism was a prelude to WWI and to WWII. It may ultimately be a prelude to WWIII.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2014/national-defense-spending-680.jpg
Military spending is not the problem. But healthcare, which already comprises 23% of the federal budget (see attached) is about to jump to a much larger portion of the budget. 6% is interest on our debt (hello China!). “Income security” (those subsidies) is 19%. Personally, I’d far rather see money spent on military spending than on subsidies. We’d have a safer world and fewer screwed up (by gov’t intervention via subsidies) marketplaces.
http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2014/where-did-your-tax-dollar-go-680.jpg
Sorry, my friend, you’re a good man but I think we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement on this issue.
The Golden Horde refers to the Mongols, who at one time occupied eastern europe.
Got it. Thanks.
Just a few thoughts.
The differences are this. Increase in defense spending ( including star wars and second to our real wars) has been a precursor to two recessions, one the biggest since the great depression. Secondly, the increase in healthcare costs is a direct result of doing nothing. Moving towards single payer shows a reduction in healthcare spending. If the trade off to walking away from affordable healthcare is allowing 30000 people per year to die, what is the definition of nation defense ?
Since the ACA was enacted, healthcare cost for individuals has shown the lowest rate of increase and flattened in real terms in the last three years, as not seen for decades. Our Medicare rates increases have also leveled. Let them die at home instead at war ? As a former military man who worked in hospital ORs during the Vietnam War i say, we need a strong national defense. But waging wars and encurring hundreds if not billions of dollars in dept for long term healthcare recovery from wars to our veterans alone while subjecting their families to healthcare cost needs which is now unaffordable to them, is too much of a price to pay, just to jack up our military spending and cut healthcare at the same time.
Every other country that has shown that providing healthcare affordable to everyone, actually cuts total cost by stressing preventative care and decreasing associated cost of late life upkeep, diabetes related diseases. Over 75% of our healthcare costs are preventable and some want to walk away from actually preventing them… Hard to understand why we don’t get that keeping people healthy and out of wars, actually decreases our national debt and increases are quality of life.
What we’re being burdened by is not a single payer system. The new law doesn’t provide anyone with any insurance. It simply mandates that the individual buy insurance from a private provider and that the policies offered by the private providers be upgraded beyond what many people can afford and what many people want and had, “catastrophic event” insurance that enables the purchaser to accept higher risk for lower cost. What’s actually happening is that the cost of policies is rising and the coverage is sinking. It’s that sinking coverage, those skyrocketing copays and “up front” costs, that are leaving the perception that the cost of healthcare is rising more slowly. The “cost of healthcare” is referring to the cost as recognized by the insurers, NOT the actual cost, much more of which is being now absorbed by the consumer.
The other factor is that the ancillary costs are not being factored in. The IRS has requested a $1.6billion increase in their budget and over 6,000 new agents directly as a result of the ACA.
And the automatic subsidies to the insurers to guarantee them profitability hasn’t even raised its ugly head yet.
I believe in a single payer system. This ain’t it. Not by a longshot.
The ACA uses a conservative approach of allowing the free market to provide healthcare but under clearly defined rules that advantage the insured instead of make the provider wealthy at the cost of their lives. Allowing the insured on their rolls after exceeding their contributions while allowing them to still find affordable care with pre existing conditions works well in Medicare because it’s a govt. mandated program with less then 5% overhead which is in the black. Doing the same with for profit healthcare, the conservative model which works also, requires that like no fault car insurance, every becomes enrolled. They also have their to profits limited to 13%.
Now, if good conservatives like you and many, many others who understand that the best is a non profit solution, govt. option being one, stepping up and saying so, voting for the who supported it, writing your congressman, would have been ideal. But, it still saves money according to the CBO, and the other side had their chance to improve it and not just throw it out and return to “as usual”. The Romney Plan as a successful lab to ACA does not work as well as Medicare nor does it have quite the satisfaction level. But, darn close and well worth the effort and very good security to all residents. Those with Cadillac plans where the ACA mandates a max of 9.5% of your salary and as low as 4% for those in states who decided to use the available Medicaid expansion, will complain. Their rates will be higher and their Cruise will be restricted to outside balconies instead twin balcony staterooms. It is worth it to the potential “life savings” and those on Medicare who are now reaping the benefits of non profit. As a Medicare recipient, my plan has improved because of the ACA in many ways because it had at least match their standards. Time will tell. I don’t know about the 6000 number. But regardless, it will save thousands of lives over time. Insuring the uninsured does that.
The CBO estimated an extra amount of funds to manage the ACA account on the part of IRS in enrollment responsibilities. Conservative pundits extrapolated that into salaries for a comparable number of employees. Regardless of how that expense works out, what these same pundits failed to use for CBO estimates, was the total savings in healthcare cost of the ACA which made this administrative cost well worth it. Cherry picking numbers is ok. Just cherry pick all of them.
Many of us did. Unfortunately, more of you left wingers voted for Obama than we had that voted for… anyone!!!
You’re reiterating the same BS that the administration has crammed down our throats since this whole mess started. Haven’t you learned yet that he was lying? Do you think he postponed its implementation until after the 2012 election and has postponed enforcement of some of its critical elements because he was afraid it would be too successful?
To get back to the origin of this neverending debate, do you think ramping the military spending downward even further and shifting the dollars to Obamacare will result in a safer world? Sorry, but current events would suggest that you’re wrong.
I’m tired. I’m tired of watching the economy struggle, small businesses suffer, large businesses shut down plants and lay off employees, and reading about people losing their doctors, preferred hospitals, and chosen health plans because of the ACA. I’m tired of watching the world become more dangerous because of military budget cutting while spending on this disastrous Act skyrockets. If you don’t believe that’s happening, than you need to expand your informational horizons.